The Age of Cheap Oil is Over

2011-04-27 19:52:52

#1

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5437|Sydney

IEA chief economist Fatih Birol says the world's crude oil production peaked in 2006.

He says oil prices are likely to rise 30 per cent over the next three years.

"The existing fields are declining so sharply that in order to stay where we are in terms of production levels in the next 25 years, we have to find and develop four new Saudi Arabias," he said.

"It is a huge, huge challenge that we continue to underline."

The IEA says governments around the world need to rethink their reliance on oil.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011 … 202209.htm

Four new Saudi Arabias? Time to really start mass producing those alternative fuel vehicles of all descriptions.

2011-04-27 19:57:04

#2

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6933|Canberra, AUS

It's a shame materials physics + surface physics / chem is so fucking boring otherwise I would go an make a killing developing new batteries.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-04-27 19:59:22

#3

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6411|what

If I could get around the law of thermodynamics, I could go one better.

2011-04-27 19:59:54

#4

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5437|Sydney

Alas, physics is a bitch when it doesn't work the way you want it to.

2011-04-27 20:04:31

#5

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +564|6972|Purplicious Wisconsin

I want USA to use only NA oil and natural gas. Why can't we drill our own shit? Fucking hate environmentalists

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2011-04-27 20:08:27

#6

RTHKI: mmmf mmmf mmmf; +1,741|6996|Cinncinatti

save the best oil for last

2011-04-27 20:08:45

#7

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6704|The Land of Scott Walker

Yes, let's tap what we have available. Not doing so and allowing other nations to grab it is utterly stupid. While doing that, perfect hydrogen fueling.

2011-04-27 20:09:23

#8

Macbeth: Banned; +2,444|5844

We'll see. I remember reading articles and threads like these back in '06. My ''hyperbolic journalism'' alarm went off while reading this one.

2011-04-27 20:24:11

#9

AussieReaper: ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°); +5,761|6411|what

War Man wrote:
I want USA to use only NA oil and natural gas. Why can't we drill our own shit? Fucking hate environmentalists

Or at the very least you should allow BP to drill for more oil wells around the US coast.

2011-04-27 20:33:37

#10

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5617|London, England

Stingray24 wrote:
Yes, let's tap what we have available. Not doing so and allowing other nations to grab it is utterly stupid. While doing that, perfect hydrogen fueling.

What exactly is it that you think hydrogen fuel is? You do understand that it takes a whole lot of energy to harvest, isolate and condense hydrogen gas, yes? You understand that we can't just go down to the local pond and fill up our cars, yes? Energy issues aside, there are also myriad issues with containing hydrogen gas, the smallest of atoms, and preventing this highly flamable gas from leaking out and causing our vehicles to explode underneath us.

------

There are just so many misconceptions in regards to alternative fuels and energy sources it's actually rather infuriating to read these conversations when they come up. People always have opinions based on what some non-scientist (and yes, 'environmental scientists' are not scientists) has put forth in the past. Everyone expects sci-fi fixes to today's problems.

Gasoline and other fossil fuels became a huge part of our daily lives not because there was some vast conspiracy theory on the part of the oil companies, but because we as human beings have never in our history discovered a cheaper means of producing work. Work is the very foundation for our standard of living. The difference between the US and Nicaragua? Energy production and consumption. We've created thousands of machines to make our daily lives easier and this in turn allows us to spend our time performing a vastly superior number of tasks on a daily basis than is possible in a poor nation like Nicaragua. This is our wealth. This is our standard of living.

Because of this, any move to replace our energy sources with less efficient ones like solar or wind or biofuels necessitates a commensurate drop in our standard of living. We'll have to spend more of our time and resources to extract the same amount of work that we do today. So it's not just a matter of convincing the unenlightened mouth breathers of the world that 'they're killing the planet' or some other such greenie nonsense, those greenies are asking people to take a step backwards towards the relative stone age of the 1800s.

------

tl;dr version: thread is dumb. non-scientists spouting ideas on scientific topics makes my head hurt.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-27 20:34:04

#11

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5617|London, England

AussieReaper wrote:
War Man wrote:
I want USA to use only NA oil and natural gas. Why can't we drill our own shit? Fucking hate environmentalists
Or at the very least you should allow BP to drill for more oil wells around the US coast.

Yes, we should.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-27 20:41:54

#12

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5437|Sydney

How about reading the article before jumping on your soapbox?

The IEA is an independent, multi-government agency formed out of the wake of the 1973 oil crisis. It forecasts oil production, monitors the international oil market and other energy sectors.

Pretty sure the dude knows what he's talking about.

2011-04-27 20:42:51

#13

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5518|foggy bottom

the bubble aint bursting!

Tu Stultus Es

2011-04-27 20:44:57

#14

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +564|6972|Purplicious Wisconsin

Jay wrote:
AussieReaper wrote:
War Man wrote:
I want USA to use only NA oil and natural gas. Why can't we drill our own shit? Fucking hate environmentalists
Or at the very least you should allow BP to drill for more oil wells around the US coast.
Yes, we should.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2011-04-27 20:47:56

#15

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6704|The Land of Scott Walker

Jay wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Yes, let's tap what we have available. Not doing so and allowing other nations to grab it is utterly stupid. While doing that, perfect hydrogen fueling.
What exactly is it that you think hydrogen fuel is? You do understand that it takes a whole lot of energy to harvest, isolate and condense hydrogen gas, yes? You understand that we can't just go down to the local pond and fill up our cars, yes? Energy issues aside, there are also myriad issues with containing hydrogen gas, the smallest of atoms, and preventing this highly flamable gas from leaking out and causing our vehicles to explode underneath us.

------

There are just so many misconceptions in regards to alternative fuels and energy sources it's actually rather infuriating to read these conversations when they come up. People always have opinions based on what some non-scientist (and yes, 'environmental scientists' are not scientists) has put forth in the past. Everyone expects sci-fi fixes to today's problems.

Gasoline and other fossil fuels became a huge part of our daily lives not because there was some vast conspiracy theory on the part of the oil companies, but because we as human beings have never in our history discovered a cheaper means of producing work. Work is the very foundation for our standard of living. The difference between the US and Nicaragua? Energy production and consumption. We've created thousands of machines to make our daily lives easier and this in turn allows us to spend our time performing a vastly superior number of tasks on a daily basis than is possible in a poor nation like Nicaragua. This is our wealth. This is our standard of living.

Because of this, any move to replace our energy sources with less efficient ones like solar or wind or biofuels necessitates a commensurate drop in our standard of living. We'll have to spend more of our time and resources to extract the same amount of work that we do today. So it's not just a matter of convincing the unenlightened mouth breathers of the world that 'they're killing the planet' or some other such greenie nonsense, those greenies are asking people to take a step backwards towards the relative stone age of the 1800s.

------

tl;dr version: thread is dumb. non-scientists spouting ideas on scientific topics makes my head hurt.

Yes. Hence "perfect"ing hydrogen fueling. Oil is the engine of freedom and our standard of living, no argument there. But if someone comes up with a viable, cost-efficient means of alternate fuel, I'm all for it. Guess I'm hoping someday the Middle East will run out of oil and they'll have to come crawling for energy.

2011-04-27 20:50:41

#16

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5617|London, England

Jaekus wrote:
How about reading the article before jumping on your soapbox?

The IEA is an independent, multi-government agency formed out of the wake of the 1973 oil crisis. It forecasts oil production, monitors the international oil market and other energy sectors.
Pretty sure the dude knows what he's talking about.

I wasn't bashing the article. I was bashing the path that these threads always take. I've read from multiple sources that we're on the wrong side of the peak. Exploration has been in decline for two decades now. They're just not finding new oil.

I just get annoyed when people overreact and run around like lemmings while mouthing the 'alternative energy' words without understanding. That's all. Wasn't meant as a poke at you Jake.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-27 20:50:57

#17

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6933|Canberra, AUS

Jay wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Yes, let's tap what we have available. Not doing so and allowing other nations to grab it is utterly stupid. While doing that, perfect hydrogen fueling.
What exactly is it that you think hydrogen fuel is? You do understand that it takes a whole lot of energy to harvest, isolate and condense hydrogen gas, yes? You understand that we can't just go down to the local pond and fill up our cars, yes? Energy issues aside, there are also myriad issues with containing hydrogen gas, the smallest of atoms, and preventing this highly flamable gas from leaking out and causing our vehicles to explode underneath us.

This basically. Hydrogen is a dire "alternative". So many problems with it. The most obvious being that hydrogen gas doesn't like being hydrogen gas - which cases a myriad of safety issues, and means that you have to use a fuckload of energy to get it into the molecular state.

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-04-27 20:51:00

#18

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5437|Sydney

Middle East come crawling for energy? At the current level of dependency the world has on Middle Eastern oil I'd say we'd all be in a similar boat.

2011-04-27 20:53:10

#19

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5617|London, England

Stingray24 wrote:
Yes. Hence "perfect"ing hydrogen fueling. Oil is the engine of freedom and our standard of living, no argument there. But if someone comes up with a viable, cost-efficient means of alternate fuel, I'm all for it. Guess I'm hoping someday the Middle East will run out of oil and they'll have to come crawling for energy.

What part of it's not economically feasible did you not comprehend? Natural gas is a much better source of fuel than hydrogen ever would be. It's cheaper to produce, easier to contain, and just as willing to work as fuel. The only people that still talk about hydrogen fuel are idiot greenies who dream of a utopia where cars piss water instead of farting carbon dioxide.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-27 20:53:32

#20

eleven bravo: Member; +1,399|5518|foggy bottom

obviously none of you have heard of thorium

Tu Stultus Es

2011-04-27 20:54:17

#21

War Man: Australians are hermaphrodites.; +564|6972|Purplicious Wisconsin

Jay wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Yes. Hence "perfect"ing hydrogen fueling. Oil is the engine of freedom and our standard of living, no argument there. But if someone comes up with a viable, cost-efficient means of alternate fuel, I'm all for it. Guess I'm hoping someday the Middle East will run out of oil and they'll have to come crawling for energy.
What part of it's not economically feasible did you not comprehend? Natural gas is a much better source of fuel than hydrogen ever would be. It's cheaper to produce, easier to contain, and just as willing to work as fuel. The only people that still talk about hydrogen fuel are idiot greenies who dream of a utopia where cars piss water instead of farting carbon dioxide.

I loled at the farting CO2 and pissing water part.

The irony of guns, is that they can save lives.

2011-04-27 20:55:02

#22

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5617|London, England

Spark wrote:
Jay wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
Yes, let's tap what we have available. Not doing so and allowing other nations to grab it is utterly stupid. While doing that, perfect hydrogen fueling.
What exactly is it that you think hydrogen fuel is? You do understand that it takes a whole lot of energy to harvest, isolate and condense hydrogen gas, yes? You understand that we can't just go down to the local pond and fill up our cars, yes? Energy issues aside, there are also myriad issues with containing hydrogen gas, the smallest of atoms, and preventing this highly flamable gas from leaking out and causing our vehicles to explode underneath us.
This basically. Hydrogen is a dire "alternative". So many problems with it. The most obvious being that hydrogen gas doesn't like being hydrogen gas - which cases a myriad of safety issues, and means that you have to use a fuckload of energy to get it into the molecular state.

Precisely. It's just about the last fuel you would ever want to depend on. I'd just about prefer to ride a horse.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-27 20:58:56

#23

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5437|Sydney

Jay wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
How about reading the article before jumping on your soapbox?

The IEA is an independent, multi-government agency formed out of the wake of the 1973 oil crisis. It forecasts oil production, monitors the international oil market and other energy sectors.
Pretty sure the dude knows what he's talking about.
I wasn't bashing the article. I was bashing the path that these threads always take. I've read from multiple sources that we're on the wrong side of the peak. Exploration has been in decline for two decades now. They're just not finding new oil.

I just get annoyed when people overreact and run around like lemmings while mouthing the 'alternative energy' words without understanding. That's all. Wasn't meant as a poke at you Jake.

Oh. With you there I agree.

It's just such a huge issue. Whole economies depend on oil. Alternative energy is a great idea but the amount of effort and resources to get it off the ground en masse is enormous, and the cost of implementing and accessing these alternatives is prohibitive at the moment and will be for some time. From a personal standpoint it's nice to feel green about things if you're that way inclined but I'm not prepared to change from my 1993 year old small car to a brand new hybrid, or spend $2,500 to get it converted to LPG when my car was only $4,000 four years ago. But I guess at some point there will be a tipping point and some huge changes will need to be made, out of pure necessity.

2011-04-27 21:01:35

#24

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5617|London, England

Jaekus wrote:
Jay wrote:
Jaekus wrote:
How about reading the article before jumping on your soapbox?

Pretty sure the dude knows what he's talking about.
I wasn't bashing the article. I was bashing the path that these threads always take. I've read from multiple sources that we're on the wrong side of the peak. Exploration has been in decline for two decades now. They're just not finding new oil.

I just get annoyed when people overreact and run around like lemmings while mouthing the 'alternative energy' words without understanding. That's all. Wasn't meant as a poke at you Jake.
Oh. With you there I agree.

It's just such a huge issue. Whole economies depend on oil. Alternative energy is a great idea but the amount of effort and resources to get it off the ground en masse is enormous, and the cost of implementing and accessing these alternatives is prohibitive at the moment and will be for some time. From a personal standpoint it's nice to feel green about things if you're that way inclined but I'm not prepared to change from my 1993 year old small car to a brand new hybrid, or spend $2,500 to get it converted to LPG when my car was only $4,000 four years ago. But I guess at some point there will be a tipping point and some huge changes will need to be made, out of pure necessity.

The nuclear meltdown in Japan recently didn't help matters It really is the only alternative right now.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-04-27 21:02:34

#25

Jaekus: I'm the matchstick that you'll never lose; +957|5437|Sydney

Nuclear powered cars?

LPG does seem the best option. Only thing is it smells like farts. Imagine being stuck in traffic on the highway surrounded by thousands of LPG powered cars...

Last edited by Jaekus (2011-04-27 21:03:16)

BF2S Forums The Age of Cheap Oil is Over

War Man wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

War Man wrote:

Jay wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

War Man wrote:

Jay wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jay wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Spark wrote:

Jay wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jaekus wrote:

Board footer